|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 33
5
Findings and Recommendations
DISCUSSION
VA has a large health care system, and as such, it not only reaps the
benefits of but is also subject to the strains and limitations of any large
organization. VA facilities run the gamut from the small rural primary care
facility to the large urban tertiary care complex. It was for this system that an
effort was undertaken to develop and implement a clinical diagnostic program
that would identify the health problems of those who served in the Persian Gulf
War and that could be implemented in each facility, regardless of its size. That
effort was begun immediately upon the cessation of hostilities and drew upon
lessons learned from past efforts to respond to the needs of Vietnam veterans.
A great deal of time and effort was expended to develop and implement a
program that would provide high-quality diagnostic services to those deployed
to the Persian Gulf. However, time brings new information and experiences that
serve to indicate improvements that can be made. Change is part of a natural
evolutionary process in developing good screening instruments and processes.
This is not to imply that the first efforts were inappropriate but, rather, that time
leads to new knowledge, which leads to the ability to improve.
Such is the case with the VA Persian Gulf protocol. Over time, information
has been obtained which can be used to help identify areas where change in the
protocol and its implementation will be of benefit. This report is intended to
assist VA in that attempt.
The conclusions and recommendations reported here are not meant to serve
as an indictment of the efforts of the VA providers who are working to provide
33
OCR for page 34
34
ADEQUACY OF THE VA PERSIAN GULFREGISTRYANDUCAP
high-quality services to the veteran population. Rather, as an operational
system, the Persian Gulf Registry and UCAP provide the opportunity for
observation, evaluation, and feedback aimed at improvement. That is what the
committee has done-observed, evaluated, and reported.
The following section provides findings and recommendations, organized
as follows. First, the committee provides its recommendation on the overall
process to be used in a program focused on diagnosing Persian Gulf veterans'
health problems. This is followed by specific recommendations regarding the
elements of the process, its implementation and administration, and the quality
of services rendered. Next come recommendations related to outreach efforts to
veterans and provider education. Broad recommendations appear in boldface
type, with subentries indicating recommendations following from these broader
recommendations.
DIAGNOSTIC PROCESS
The diagnostic and referral process specified in VA Manual M-10 is laid out
as a two-stage protocol. The protocol specifies that if, after an initial history and
physical with minimal laboratory testing (Registry; Phase I) the veteran does not
receive a diagnosis, he or she is referred to UCAP (Phase II) for specialist
consultation and testing. Division of the diagnostic process into two phases is,
however, an artificial division which does not accurately reflect the way in
which medicine is traditionally practiced.
The committee found that the diagnostic process followed in some facilities
does not adhere to the written protocol but is, instead, more clinically driven.
That is, evaluations as carried out in some facilities are often tailored to the
symptoms and complaints of the patient, not blind adherence to the written
protocol. Phase I evaluations in such facilities are frequently supplemented by
selected consultations and tests from Phase II (e.g., the Registry provider does
not wait until a Phase II designation to order pulmonary function tests if the
patient complains of shortness of breath). It also appears that the entire Phase II
protocol is not necessarily implemented in some facilities if a diagnosis that
accounts for the primary complaints of the veteran can be arrived at without the
full workup.
Although it is encouraging that providers are using their clinical judgment
to evaluate veterans who present with symptoms, such practices result in
confusion about where the patient is in the diagnostic process when compared to
the written protocol mandated by VA. The current differentiation between a
Phase I and a Phase II evaluation varies from facility to facility, that is, it
depends on the facility in which a patient is examined rather than, as the
protocol specifies, on whether the patient has received a diagnosis that explains
his or her significant symptoms. Such variation introduces the problem of
OCR for page 35
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDS TIONS
35
inconsistency in data recording and reporting across facilities, which, in turn,
works against achieving one of the purposes for which the system was
developed, that is, to identify previously unrecognized diagnostic entities that
could provide an explanation for the symptoms commonly reported in Persian
Gulf veterans with unexplained illness.
The committee believes that the desire to implement a uniform approach to
the diagnosis of health problems in Persian Gulf veterans is admirable and
should be encouraged. In order to accomplish this goal, however, the
committee believes that several changes need to be made in the system. First,
the system needs to be conceived of as a diagnostic pathway or process along
which every patient flows. The committee believes that the following pathway
(see Figure S.1) provides the appropriate framework for clinical diagnosis and
referral.
1. The committee recommends that the diagnostic pathway, illustrated
in Figure 5.1, for the evaluation and referral of Persian Gulf veterans'
health be adopted and followed by providers in each VA facility.
Following this pathway, a Persian Gulf veteran entering the system with no
complaints would be given the initial evaluation as specified above, and if
nothing was found upon examination and testing, that veteran's evaluation
would stop. A veteran presenting with the complaint of diarrhea would be given
the initial evaluation as specified above with the addition of such tests as stool
examination and endoscopy. If the results of the examination and testing were
consistent with a diagnosis that explained the complaints (for example, intestinal
parasites), that patient's diagnostic evaluation would stop and she or he would
be referred for treatment. If, however, the results were not consistent with the
complaint or if something unexplained appeared as a result of the tests or the
examination, the patient would continue on the diagnostic pathway for
additional evaluation and testing. Eventually, if a diagnosis cannot be
determined, the provider must decide whether (1) the symptoms or problems are
serious enough to cause disruption in the patient's life and therefore warrant
continued evaluation at a special center or (2) symptoms and complaints are not
causing disruption in the patient's life and therefore the patient should receive
periodic reevaluations to determine if his or her condition changes over time.
The major differences between the current written protocol and the pathway
recommended by the committee are (1) the primary care provider is encouraged
to order additional tests and consultations beyond those specified in Phase I for
a patient, based on symptoms and complaints, without the requirement of
initiating a Phase II evaluation, (2) patients should be referred to a designated
referral center only when the resources necessary to provide appropriate
evaluation of presenting complaints are unavailable at the originating facility,
and (3) there must be a defined approach to be used for patients who remain
OCR for page 36
-
3
36
ADEQUACY OF THE VA PERSIAN GULF REGISTRY AND UCAP
undiagnosed or whose major symptoms have not been accounted for (for
example, periodic reevaluation, treatment, or referral to a referral center).
No symptoms and
negative findings
IN1MAL EVALUATTON
Primary Care Provider
1 1 1
Definable Definable
disorder consistent disorder inconsistent Unexplained Unexplained
L widl symptoms | l with symptoms I Findings | ~symptoms
~ r
Refer for treatments
periodic evaluation
-
1
r SPECTALTST EVALUATION
! 1
1 1
Definable Definable
disorder consistent disorder inconsistent
with symptoms with symptoms
. 1
-
Refer for treatment,
periodic evaluation
_ _ ,_
Unexplained Unexplained
findings symptoms
PROFESSIONAL DECISION
Refer for treatment,
periodic reevaluation
required
Refer to special center
for further evaluation |
FIGURE 5.1. Pathway for diagnosing health problems of Persian Gulf veterans in the
VA system.
OCR for page 37
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
37
Adoption of the described pathway necessitates specific changes to the
protocols for conducting the Registry and UCAP examinations. A patient's
position in the pathway is dependent upon whether the patient has received a
diagnosis that accounts for his or her major symptoms. Although that was the
apparent intent of the original protocols, the distinction between the Phase I
Registry examination and the Phase II UCAP examination resulted in confusion
among providers about which phase was being conducted and where
information should be entered on the data recording form. If laboratory tests
beyond those specified in the Phase I Registry (i.e., CBC, urinalysis, and blood
chemistry tests) were ordered, did that mean that the patient was in Phase II? If
a consultation with a neurologist was ordered, did that mean that the patient was
in Phase II? Those questions are no longer relevant or important in the new
diagnostic pathway.
l.a. Use of the pathway eliminates the need to designate phases of
evaluation; therefore the distinction between Phase I and Phase II (with all
accompanying specifications for specialty examination and referral) should
be eliminated.
l.a.(l) The Persian Gulf Registry Code Sheet needs to be redesigned
to reflect the elimination of Phase I and Phase II from the protocol.
l.a.~2) The redesign should accommodate the need to aggregate data
from the original data collection system with that of the redesigned
system.
A minority of patients with persistent symptoms will not receive a
definitive diagnosis. Some of these patients could have disease processes that
cannot be diagnosed presently because of limitations in scientific understanding
and diagnostic testing. They may not benefit Tom farther evaluation now but
may receive benefit from reassessment at a later date. This undiagnosed patient
cohort, some of whom are designated as having an "unexplained illness," will
contain a diversity of individuals who will require monitoring and periodic
reassessment.
l.b. VA should plan for and include periodic reevaluations of these
undiagnosed patients' clinical needs.
The pathway specifies an initial evaluation by a primary care provider for
the Persian Gulf veteran. In traditional medical practice, the comprehensive
clinical evaluation of a patient presenting to any physician includes a complete
history, physical examination and laboratory tests appropriate to the presenting
complaints or clinical problems. This should be no different for Persian Gulf
veterans. In addition, some veterans may not be experiencing difficulties but
may wish to participate in the program. An initial evaluation with a basic set of
OCR for page 38
38
ADEQUACY OF THE VA PERSIAN GULFREGISTRY AND UCAP
elements should be given to both groups of patients, with additional tests
performed as necessary based upon presenting complaints for those veterans
with clinical problems or complaints.
The results of that initial evaluation will determine whether the patient
proceeds further in the diagnostic process, as reflected in the recommended
clinical pathway. The committee believes that VA should consider using an
expanded set of tests and additional exposure questions for the initial evaluation.
2. The committee recommends that both patients presenting with and
those presenting without complaints should receive an initial evaluation
which includes (1) a comprehensive history and physical as defined in the
American Medical Association publication Physicians' Current Procedural
Terminology (1998), (2) a very specific set of questions related to the Gulf
War setting, and (3) a standardized laboratory evaluation.
2.a. A national panel of experts should be convened to (1) review the
current set of Gulf War-related questions contained on the Persian Gulf
Registry Code Sheet to determine whether additions or deletions are
needed, (2) identify the set of standardized laboratory tests to be used in
the initial evaluation, and (3) conduct periodic reevaluations of the
usefulness of each element in the initial evaluation.
Specific Gulf War-related questions to which veterans are asked to respond
include the exposure questions contained on the Persian Gulf Registry Code
Sheet (see Appendix H). Given the importance placed by veterans and
clinicians on the potential contribution of exposures to health complaints of
Persian Gulf veterans, the committee decided to examine the exposure questions
in detail.
In some facilities the questionnaire portion of this Code Sheet is given to
the veteran to complete as a self-report form, whereas in other facilities this is
completed during an interview with the provider. The information collected
with this questionnaire is not intended to be used for research purposes. Rather
the purpose of the questionnaire is to provide information to the clinician that
might be used to assist in the diagnosis of health problems. It is Important,
therefore, that the patient understand what is being asked of him or her so as to
provide the clinician with accurate information.
With regard to Question 18 and its subsections, covering smoking and war-
related toxic exposures, the committee believes that these questions are
appropriate if administered by an interviewer, but not optimal as a self-report.
Since this section is frequently handed to the veteran to be filled out as a self-
report form, the extent to which responses are checked by an interviewer is not
clear.
OCR for page 39
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
39
The instructions to skip over certain questions on items 18A to 18F (the
smoking questions) are also confusing. The problems with questions 18G to
18Z have to do primarily with comprehension. Some of the options are not
explained, so the veteran may respond negatively even if he or she has been
exposed. For example, CARC is spelled out, but no description is provided.
Likewise, exposure to depleted uranium and mustard gas may not be
acknowledged if the veteran does not know how to tell if he or she might have
been exposed. Although "don't know" is a valid option, the committee assumes
that the examining physicians would want to know as much as possible about
probable exposure. For this reason, the veteran should be able to discuss these
possible exposures.
The primary problem with the questions related to traumatic experiences
(items l9A to l9F) is that the questionnaire may miss important experiences or
stressors that can affect physical and mental health, and about which the
physician should know when doing the patient workup. Research has shown
that stressors have been associated with major depression, substance abuse, and
a variety of physical health problems, including immune system dysfunction.
With men and women serving together in a difficult situation such as war, a
unique series of concerns emerges regarding the incidence of physical or sexual
harassment or assault or both. Chapter 1 of VA Manual M-10, Part III identifies
some special health needs of women veterans of the Persian Gulf including the
long-term consequences of rape, other sexual assault, sexual harassment,
exposure to combat during military service, or mistreatment as a prisoner of
war. However, there is no specific reference to rape or abuse in the protocol
history, and there is no routine evaluation of these activities in the absence of
"reproductive health problems."
Veterans have indicated that seeing others dead (including Iraqi soldiers) is
a very stressful experience. There may have been other frightening experiences
that were relatively uncommon but that would be very upsetting and stressful if
one were exposed to them.
There needs to be a way for veterans to report traumatic or stressful
experiences to the clinician so that these experiences can be taken into account
in evaluating a veteran's health complaints. Even less classically traumatic
experiences such as harassment may play a role in health outcomes. An open-
ended questionks) would also be useful for nonnormative, yet highly stressful,
experiences. VA has a number of research centers with trauma specialists who
could assist with the specific wording of such questions. Examples of such
questions are given in Appendix 0, some of which are taken from Southwick et
al. (1997~.
2.b. The section on traumatic experiences on the Persian Gulf Registry
Code Sheet (Question 19) should be expanded by the addition of (1)
specific questions inquiring about experiences not presently assessed that
OCR for page 40
40
ADEQ UP CY OF THE VA PERSIAN G ULF GISTS Y AND UCAP
have been reported by Persian Gulf veterans, and (2) an open-ended
questioners) that allows the veteran to report idiosyncratic or particularly
distressing experiences that may play a role in the veteran's current health
status.
2.c. The questionnaire should be administered in an interview format. If
the information on environmental exposure, immunizations, and exposure
to traumatic situations cannot be collected in an interview format, all yes
and don't know responses should be reviewed with the patient in a face-to-
face evaluation.
In addition to discussion of the exposure questions, the committee focused
on examining the list of the consultations and tests required by the UCAP
protocol if a veteran presented with specific symptoms. At the time of its
development the VA protocol was an appropriate attempt to collect a wide
variety of information that covered all known potential health concerns that
could affect Persian Gulf veterans. Much has been learned since it was first
implemented. It is now known that certain symptoms (e.g., fatigue, memory
loss, severe headaches, muscle and joint pain, and rashes) are commonly
reported by these veterans. Now that this additional information is available,
areas upon which to focus efforts at identifying and diagnosing health problems
can be discerned. One mechanism that can aid in these efforts is the develop-
ment of clinical practice guidelines.
Great strides in methods for developing clinical practice guidelines have
been made in the past few years. Clinical practice guidelines are defined as
systematically developed statements that assist the practitioner and the patient in
making decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical
circumstances (Field and Lohr, 1990~. Once developed, clinical practice
guidelines can be used to assist clinical decision making by patients and
practitioners, to educate individuals or groups, to assess and assure the quality of
care, and to guide the allocation of resources for health care (Field and Lohr,
19929.
There are two major approaches to the development of practice guidelines.
The first approach, the evidence-based approach, emphasizes the significance of
the science base for guidelines and the use of quantitative modeling for
estimating and comparing outcomes. The other approach emphasizes
professional judgment in areas in which the science is weak or nonexistent
(Field and Lohr, 1992~. It may be that for some of the conditions being seen in
the VA Persian Gulf program, a melding of experience and judgment with
scientific evidence, where it exists, is the best possible approach.
Efforts are already under way for the development of practice guidelines in
the VA health care system. In January 1997, VA distributed to all of its
facilities clinical guidelines for major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress
OCR for page 41
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
41
disorder, and addictive disorder (Veterans Health Administration, 1997~. These
guidelines were developed by and for VA clinicians.
3. The committee recommends that VA, to the extent possible, use an
evidence-based approach to develop and continuously reevaluate clinical
practice guidelines for the most common presenting symptoms and the
difficult-to-diagnose, ill-defined, or medically unexplained conditions of
Persian Gulf veterans.
These guidelines need to be specific, comprehensive, and flexible enough to
be useful in everyday clinical practice. Multidisciplinary groups of those
providing care should be involved in the development process.
The Persian Gulf War differed from previous U.S. military engagements in
that 7°/0 of those deployed (about 49,000) were women. Potential exposure by
this group of women to stressors, reproductive system toxicants, and other
health hazards may produce disorders distinct from those seen in prior conflicts
or among the men who served in the Gulf. The committee believes that VA has
a unique opportunity to examine the health of women deployed under such
circumstances. Therefore, there should be increased examination of and
attention directed toward women's health issues. The current Registry and
UCAP do evaluate infertility or subfertility among males and females,
miscarriages, stillbirths, and congenital malformations.
The evaluation of genitourinary or other hormonally related disease is
limited, however. Evaluation of this area in the current system is symptom-
driven, allowing for errors of omission to be made in the absence of patient
awareness. In addition, as discussed above, the special health needs of Persian
Gulf veterans related to physical or sexual harassment and assault should be
systematically addressed.
3.a. Clinical practice guidelines for the evaluation and management of
women's health issues should be developed.
During the site visits and in the VA responses to requests for input, it was
noted that no mechanism for providing feedback on the adequacy of the
protocol and its use is available. For example, the current protocol states that
every patient who is not diagnosed after Phase I and who presents with
headache is to undergo magnetic resonance imaging of the head and receive a
lumbar puncture. However, lumbar punctures are rarely ordered. Feedback
from providers on the usefulness of the tests recommended for the diagnostic
process and on the clinical practice guidelines once they are developed would
provide important information on what changes, if any, should be made in the
evaluation process.
OCR for page 42
42
ADEQUACY OF THE VA PERSIAN GULFREGISTRYAND UCAP
3.b. VA should develop a formal mechanism that enables practitioners to
provide feedback on the practice guidelines and the diagnostic process
used in the VA clinical program for Persian Gulf veterans.
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
The committee focused its examination of the implementation and
administration of the Registry and UCAP on four elements that it believes are of
prime importance to the adequate functioning of the program. These four areas
are (1) referral for specialty consultation, both within and across facilities, (2)
quality of services provided, (3) patient satisfaction, and (4) data collection and
reporting. The following sections discuss the committee's findings and
recommendations for these four areas.
Referrals
According to information received by the committee, referrals for specialty
consultation or to a Referral Center present problems. Within facilities,
consultant practices are often booked weeks in advance, resulting in long delays
for specialty services. Workup and consultant appointments are often at the
convenience of the clinic or specialty service, without consultation with the
patient about his or her availability. Appointments may be spread over days or
weeks, requiring patients to return frequently to the VA facility. For all veterans
this can be a lengthy and time-consuming process. For the employed veteran,
this can create additional difficulties related to missed work, missed pay, and
poor employee evaluation.
In addition, once specialty appointments are scheduled and the veterans are
seen, the referral specialist is frequently unaware that the patient is a Persian
Gulf veteran or the specialist has little or no experience with the particular needs
and concerns of this group of patients. This may create the perception that the
care being provided is less than adequate, whether or not such is the case.
It is also the case that veterans undergoing evaluations at a tertiary level
often have unrealistic expectations of the process and the outcome of the visit.
They are unaware that many of the same questions and tests that they have
already undergone will be repeated and that the process is extremely time-
consuming. This open results in frustration and anger, exacerbating an already
sensitive situation.
One approach to addressing this problem is the use of clinical pathways
which are clinical management tools that specify the various activities involved
in a project from start to finish and the amount of time anticipated to complete
each ofthe activities (Hoffman, 1993~.
OCR for page 43
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
43
Clinical pathways organize, sequence, and delineate the timing of the major
patient care activities and interventions of the entire interdisciplinary team for a
particular diagnosis, procedure, or process, defining key processes and events in
the day-to-day management of care and identifying expected outcomes. They
should be developed locally, because they are specific to the particular setting
and the team who uses them (Veterans Health Administration, 1997~.
4. The committee recommends that the process and procedures for
referral be modified.
4.a. In those facilities where specialist consultations are provided, certain
individuals within each specialty should be designated as the one~s) who
will provide the consultative services to Persian Gulf veterans.
Designated specialists should receive initial orientation concerning Persian
Gulf War-related medical issues in their area of expertise.
4.b. Clinical pathways should be developed to specify the events and
processes involved in referrals for specialty consultation.
Facilitation of the workup for Persian Gulf veterans is an important
consideration. The evaluation should be done in a manner that is as timely,
efficient, and convenient as possible. If travel, distance, time off from work, or
other obstacles make completion of the evaluation as an outpatient too onerous
for a given veteran, then preplanned, rapid inpatient evaluation may be
considered.
4.c. In the case of an inpatient evaluation, a site-specific clinical pathway
should be used to facilitate the timely and efficient evaluation of patients.
Referral to another facility presents additional problems, for both the
veteran and the practitioners. For the veteran, referral to another center for
specialty services often creates problems related to travel, time off from work,
and family considerations. For the providers, there is frequently difficulty
related to initial contact with the referral facility, unreturned calls, and an
inability to obtain copies of reports. There may also be a lack of communication
between the originating facility and the referral facility regarding proposed
treatment and follow-up In addition, there appears to be a great deal of
inconsistency from facility to facility in terms of when it is deemed appropriate
to refer a veteran for this tertiary level of evaluation.
4.d. The diagnostic pathway should specify that a patient be referred to
another facility for evaluation only when the resources necessary to
OCR for page 44
44
ADEQUACY OF THE VA PERSIAN GULF REGISTRYAND UCAP
provide appropriate evaluation of the patient's presenting complaints are
unavailable at the originating facility.
4.e. VA should develop a transfer protocol that specifies procedures for
initial contact and scheduling as well as the materials and processes
necessary for a transfer, for example, a full copy of the veteran's record to
date including all laboratory tests and consultations, the differential
diagnosis, and a procedure for the transfer of records from the tertiary
institution to the originating provider upon completion of the diagnostic
workup.
Quality
There is a great deal of interest in learning more about the quality of care
that Persian Gulf veterans are receiving in VA facilities. Although the com-
mittee believes that, overall, the clinicians involved in the VA Persian Gulf
Registry and UCAP examinations are practicing medicine according to
acceptable standards, there does not appear to be across facilities a systematic
approach to documenting the quality of care provided to Persian Gulf veterans
or to identifying areas where improvement is needed.
VA has developed procedures for what it terms the Quality
Management/Assessment Monitor (see Appendix K). According to the manual,
this form (VA Form 10-9009C-1) is to be used by VA medical centers "to assess
and monitor the appropriateness of medical care being provided" through the
Persian Gulf program. The form is to be used to abstract information from the
charts of at least a 10% sample of all Persian Gulf Registry physical
examinations conducted at each facility. Unfortunately, the form only collects
such information as whether an examination was done or ordered, whether
laboratory results were obtained, and whether follow-up letters are in the record
or were mailed to the veteran. This information does not represent an adequate
assessment of the quality of care provided to Persian Gulf veterans.
In 1990, IOM defined quality of care as "the degree to which health
services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health
outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge." (Lohr,
1990~.
Traditional quality assurance programs examined the structure within which
care is provided, the process for providing care, or the outcomes of care in an
attempt to identify the outliers or "bad apples." Current approaches focus on
perfonnance improvement and are based on a set of principles for implementing
change. Their aim is to involve practitioners in the use of nonpunitive tactics
for quality assurance that result in more effective changes and improvements to
the system than was the case with traditional approaches that were aimed at
identifying the practitioners with deficiencies.
OCR for page 45
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDA TIONS
45
The principles for performance improvement models emphasize the
relationship between the partners in the health care transaction, the fact that
errors are more often the result of defects in the system rather than individual
deficiencies, the use of statistical and scientific precepts and techniques, reliance
on self-improvement as opposed to external regulation, standardized processes,
the provision of feedback to practitioners on their pattern of practice as
compared to that of their peers, a visible commitment to quality by top
leadership, and a striving for continuous improvement as opposed simply to the
achievement of preset goals (Field and Lohr, 1992~.
The development and use of clinical practice guidelines, as recommended
earlier in this report, can be an important tool in a program for continuous
quality improvement. Such guidelines can clearly define what is appropriate
care, what are acceptable outcomes, and the contributions of practitioners and
patients to those outcomes. These guidelines can be used to help structure the
medical review criteria used to collect data on how the system is operating.
Additionally, the participation of a multidisciplinary group of providers in the
development of clinical practice guidelines increases the likelihood that needed
changes will be more readily accepted.
5. The committee recommends that VA should establish an evaluation
feedback mechanism that includes the elements of a performance
improvement system.
Patient Satisfaction
The VA health care system, as is the case with any health care system that
diagnoses and manages medical problems, must attend not only to objective
outcomes (e.g., morbidity and mortality) but also to more subjective ones such
as patient satisfaction. In fact, the measurement of patient satisfaction, as
pioneered by the Medical Outcomes Study (Rubin et al., 1993), has become one
of the most widely used and important outcomes both in the clinical arena (e.g.,
in assessing the success of interventions and other aspects of health care
delivery) and in the health services research arena. The many questions that
have arisen regarding the health consequences of the Persian Gulf War
experience, coupled with widespread publicity on a myriad of potential adverse
medical outcomes, make patient satisfaction a critical component of any
evaluation of the adequacy of the UCAP.
VA has implemented a well-developed and structured approach for
assessing general patient satisfaction with the care provided at VA facilities.
However, no system specifically addressing the substantial numbers of issues
and concerns specific and relevant to Persian Gulf veterans or the special
Persian Gulf diagnostic program is in place.
OCR for page 46
46
ADEQUACY OF THE VA PERSIAN GULFREGISTRY AND UCAP
6. The committee recommends that VA design and implement a brief
yet comprehensive questionnaire to survey patient satisfaction with the
special program for Persian Gulf veterans.
An example of the kind of instrument that might be developed can be found
in Appendix P.
Data Collection and Reporting
An adequate and accurate data collection and reporting system is crucial to
the understanding of Persian Gulf veterans' health problems. One explicitly
stated purpose of the VA Persian Gulf Registry and UCAP is the creation of a
registry that contains medical and other data on Persian Gulf veterans. This
registry would assist in identifying previously unrecognized major diagnostic
entities that could provide an explanation for the symptoms commonly reported
in Persian Gulf veterans with unexplained illnesses (VA Manual M-10, Part III,
Chapter 3, page 3-1~. Toward that end, VA has established a database that is
meant to be comparable and retrievable across VA health care facilities. These
data are not, however, intended to be used for scientific research, nor are they
adequate for the conduct of scientific research.
Because VA has only partially automated inpatient record-keeping, current
on-line retrieval of data is not possible. However, VA has plans for construction
of a computerized database for outpatient records. This should facilitate the
review of any data collected through the Persian Gulf program.
Data collection and reporting should, in general, be completed by using
standardized and field-tested instruments. The data should be recorded on
forms that are easily computerized. Individuals completing the reporting forms
should be trained in how to do so to ensure standardization of the quality of data
collected across sites. Any data entry should be done in a systematic fashion,
with routine error checking involved, and double entry should be used whenever
possible. Error rates should be checked and reported. Frequent data quality
meetings across VA sites would be advantageous for ensuring standardization.
Finally, the goals of all data collection and data reporting must be explicit
and must be the guiding principle behind their development. That is, each data
collection system and each system of reporting must be completed with specific
goals in mind. This will provide a means for the evaluation of the success and
of the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.
The Persian Gulf Registry and UCAP have been established by VA with the
intent of implementing a uniform and consistent evaluation across facilities.
Data are available; that is, medical records of Gulf War veterans are complete
and have been recorded. However, with respect to the application of the
medical protocols, standardization and reporting are problematic.
OCR for page 47
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
47
As discussed earlier, current evaluation of the patient tends, in many
facilities, to proceed along medically indicated lines rather Man being strictly
protocol-driven. Thus, it is clear that there is little consistency with respect to
designation of phase of evaluation. Such variation hampers evaluation efforts
based on these reported data.
Until the national diagnostic pathway has been implemented, Phase I and
Phase II eliminated, and the Code Sheet revised to reflect such changes, it is
anticipated that this variation will continue.
The committee found that there was variation across sites in the diagnostic
categories that practitioners used to categorize patients' health problems.
Providers at some facilities used such diagnostic categories as chronic fatigue
syndrome and fibromyalgia, while providers at other VA health facilities did
not. Such variation in the use of diagnostic categories has implications for the
consistency and accuracy of data collection and reporting.
Further, the method used to determine primary versus secondary diagnoses
varies. While a primary diagnosis is to be recorded on the code sheet, no
instructions are given regarding how to determine which diagnosis is prunary.
The committee found that some physicians list a medical diagnosis as primary
over a psychiatric diagnosis. Other physicians do not follow this custom. Such
variation introduces uncertainty about the consistency of the data.
7. The committee recommends that VA facilitate the consistency of
data reporting in the following ways.
7.a. There should be agreement nationally, within VA, on the definition
and use of specific diagnostic categories.
7.b. Clear decision rules for determining and recording the primary and
the secondary diagnoses should be developed.
The committee also found that there was no opportunity for updating the
database information gathered for each patient. That is, intake questionnaires
and data gathered at the presentation of the patient cannot be updated later in
any systematic fashion. This is true for both patients who receive a diagnosis
and those who remain symptomatic but undiagnosed. A patient's health status
can and does change over time, and the system must have some way of
capturing that new information.
8. The committee recommends that there be established a mechanism
by which individual patient information can be updated and incorporated
in the database in a systematic fashion.
This includes revision of original diagnoses and revision of status including
data that are related to life style or demographics.
OCR for page 48
48
ADEQUACY OF THE VA PERSIAN GULFREGISTRYAND UCAP
OUTREACH
For Persian Gulf veterans to participate in the special program that VA has
designed to address their health concerns, they must be aware that the program
exists and know how to register for it. The committee commends VA for the
extensive outreach efforts put forth to inform Persian Gulf veterans of the
services available to them. As described earlier, the toll-free number (1-800-
PGW-VETS or 1-800-749-8387) for those with questions about Persian Gulf
health issues, the newsletters, the pamphlets, and the computer bulletin board
(http://www.va.gov/gulf.htm) are designed to provide a number of venues
through which veterans can obtain information.
However, there does appear to be a lack of reliable, easily understood
information for Persian Gulf veterans regarding exposures and their health
consequences. This information needs to be readily accessible and available.
9. The committee recommends that VA develop informational
pamphlets for veterans. These pamphlets could be placed in facility treat-
ment areas and could address common concerns such as the purpose and
process of the VA Persian Gulf program, health effects of low-level
exposure to chemical warfare agents, research activities related to Persian
Gulf veterans and their results-to-date, and so forth.
When a veteran first visits a VA health care facility, she or he completes
what is known as an intake form. Such forms in general use throughout the VA
system are not designed to easily identify Persian Gulf veterans. Although
intake forms request dates of active-duty service, no questions specifically ask
whether the veteran served in the Persian Gulf War. Unless veterans so identify
themselves, those performing the intake function would have to know about the
VA Persian Gulf Registry and specifically ask about service in the Persian Gulf
War. It is unlikely that this occurs, and therefore, an opportunity to identify
veterans who may wish to participate in the program is lost.
10. The committee recommends that VA consider redesigning intake
forms so that the veteran is asked to identify whether or not she or he was
deployed to the Persian Gulf War (or any other specific engagement).
PROVIDER EDUCATION
One of the charges to the committee was to determine the adequacy of the
provider education activities for those who participate in the diagnosis of
Persian Gulf veterans' health problems.
OCR for page 49
FINDINGS AND COMMENDATIONS
49
As discussed earlier in the report, VA has designed a number of programs
to educate its designated Persian Gulf providers including interactive satellite
teleconferences, quarterly national telephone conference calls, direct educational
mailings, and an annual conference on health consequences of service in the
Persian Gulf War.
The committee was impressed with the high quality of these efforts, hopes
that those for whom they have been designed avail themselves of the
opportunity to participate, and believes that the audience who receives such
education needs to be expanded.
Although the designated Persian Gulf providers are given the opportunity to
participate, other primary care personnel and specialists do not usually receive
the materials nor do they participate in the educational programs. Some
specialists appeared to know little about the VA Persian Gulf Registry and
UCAP, had little or no orientation to the program, and were unable to identify
whether the patients whom they saw were Persian Gulf veterans. Although a
number of educational opportunities to learn about the program exist (e.g., the
yearly national conference, quarterly newsletters, conference calls, and
videotapes), participation in such activities appears to be limited to the
designated Registry providers.
11. The committee recommends that primary care providers, in
addition to the Registry practitioners, as well as the specialists who see
Persian Gulf veterans, be provided the opportunity and encouraged to
participate in the educational programs.
1 I.a. The audience for whom existing educational training activities are
developed related to providing health care for Persian Gulf veterans should
be expanded to include other providers involved in the evaluation process,
for example, designated specialty consultants.
The specialists with whom the committee spoke and those from whom the
committee received input often felt frustrated that veterans sometimes appeared
more knowledgeable about the latest Persian Gulf veterans' health issues and
research results than they were. Many believed that such a lack of information
could be interpreted as a lack of caring or a lack of expertise in treatment and
could lead to patient dissatisfaction with the services he or she is receiving, even
if those services were of high quality.
This lack of knowledge undermines Persian Gulf veterans' confidence in
the system, worsening patient satisfaction and heightening public concerns
about the adequacy of the VA system for addressing the health issues of Persian
Gulf veterans.
The lack of in-depth involvement of the specialists also means that they do
not have access to continuing medical education opportunities related to Persian
OCR for page 50
so
ADEQUACY OF THE VA PERSL4N GULFREGISTRY AND UCAP
Gulf veterans' health issues and that they may not participate in an evaluation-
feedback mechanism to determine the value of various parts of the protocol or
system. The specialists are the ones ordering, providing, and evaluating the
more sophisticated tests conducted during the evaluation process. They are in
an excellent position to determine how appropriate or beneficial these might be
for individual patients. Such feedback could be collated to look more closely at
the tests that do result in some positive information about the nature of veterans'
complaints.
ll.b. VA should consider the following options for education of its
providers: periodic team conferences (perhaps quarterly) to be held with
all designated providers (including specialists) to discuss activities and
findings and to provide updates on Persian Gulf issues and concerns; and
development of site-specific clinical pathways by designated specialists
and Registry providers.
Reproductive issues have been addressed in the educational efforts of VA.
Although these concerns seem to have been discussed, aspects of health unique
to women have been given a lower profile.
ll.c. Future educational efforts should place greater emphasis on
women's health concerns.
A tremendous amount of knowledge about the diagnosis and treatment of
Persian Gulf veterans' health problems is being amassed in various sites around
the country. It behooves VA to identify where and with whom this special
expertise exists and to develop mechanisms whereby others can benefit from the
lessons that have been learned.
ll.d. VA should provide resources to establish a repository for the
accumulated knowledge of, expertise in, and experience with the health
issues and problems of Persian Gulf veterans. Specialists who possess
such expertise should be identified and available for consultation by
telephone, e-mail, or telemedicine connections with local providers in all
VA facilities.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
gulf veterans
